Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "pipeable".
Did you mean:
pipable
2019 Oct 07
1
[External] Re: should base R have a piping operator ?
...n terms of when the promise for 'x' gets forced. We
shouldn't need to mess with bindings in environments to make that work.
My understanding is that the '.' placeholder is used so that the magrittr
pipe can be adapted to functions that aren't endomorphic or otherwise
easily pipeable. I would argue that:
1. Users could just create their own pipable wrapper functions if so
required, or
2. Users could use magrittr to get some of the 'extensions' to the pipe
operator (with the noted caveats).
Best,
Kevin
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
2019 Oct 07
4
[External] Re: should base R have a piping operator ?
> On 7 Oct 2019, at 17:04, Tierney, Luke <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
> Think about what happens if an
> argument in a pipe stage contains a pipe. (Not completely
> unreasonable, e.g. for a left_join).
It should work exactly as it does in a local environment.
```
`%foo%` <- function(x, y) {
env <- parent.frame()
# Use `:=` to avoid partial matching on